tv Charlie Rose PBS March 18, 2016 12:00am-1:01am PDT
>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with a cover story of time magazine about tim cook, the c.e.o. of apple and the conflict with the fbi over encrypted iphones. we talk to the editor of time magazine nancy gibbs. >> he recognizes that the optics of this are terrible. and he's uncomfortable with it. he's likened this to past civil rights fights where he feels that the government in this case is overreaching and someone has to say stop, slowdown, let's talk about what is really at stake here. and let me say, apple obviously has a lot at stake, as to other technology companies and everyone from microsoft to facebook to amazon, they have all filed am icu s briefs in support of apple. >> rose: and we continue with one of the great basketball reporters in this country, john
feinstein, his new book is called the legends club. the story of an epic college basketball rivalry. and we'll also talk about march madness. >> and mike's line is if we landed from mars instead of new york we couldn't have less of an idea how iconic dean was. and mike tells the great story about recruiting a kid in california named mark acres and realizing it wasn't going well, as will happen and finally turning to the mom who hadn't said anything the whole night and saying is there anything at all you want to foa about duke, about our academics, how mark would fit in. she said no i don't need to ask any questions. because the only thing is important is mark going to college some place where he will be close to god. and he said if he comes to duke, god will be coaching ten miles down the road in chapel hill. >> rose: we conclude with a.o. scott, "the new york times" film critic with his new book, belter living through criticism, how to think about art, pleasure, beauty and truth. >> i try not to be-- not to be cruel, not to be harsh, not to be peun tiff.
i think there are some things that are just bad and cynical and in a way corrupt that deserve to be sort of called out and harshly scolded. but i think a lot of the time most of the time i try to proceed from the idea that well, no one was trying to make a bad movie. someone was trying to do something good. >> rose: nancy gibbs, john feinstein and a.o. scott when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: captioning sponsored by rose communications
studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we turn now to the ongoing battle between apple and the fbi. one of san bernardino shooter continues. the two sides will meet in federal court next week. time magazine managing editor nancy gibbs and writer leave grossman recently sat down with an interview with apple c.e.o. tim cook. here to talk about that is nancy gins and i'm pleased to have her here. here is the cover of the time magazine, tim cook talking about his fight with the fbi and why he won't back down. let me just start with the obvious. what is your assessment of him and his commitment to this? >> that was one of the things i was most curious about and why i wanted to hear from him. because on the face of it, why would the country's richest, most valuable tech company pick a fight with the fbi over a terrorist cell phone. it seems strictly from a pr point of view insane. obviously apple has a huge commercial stake, you know, in the sense privacy and secretary resee are its product. and but talking to him its with
very clear that this is also something that he feels quite passionately about and that the stakes of this debate around encryption are so high that having a single judge and a single course in a single case, even an important and very emotional case like this, does not make sense. this is something that has to be debated by the american public, by the congress, should be handled with congress passing laws that determine when law enforcement should be able to break into these incredibly powerful little data-bases that we all now have built about ourselves and carry with us all the time. >> rose: sews' not satisfied if it goes all the way to the supreme court and there is a decision that the supreme court on this one individual case with the facts of this case, he wants to see a broader decision made in congress. >> part of the problem is that he says it's not just about this case. because someone like, you know, manhattan dasy vance has 175 phones that he would like access to and law enforcement officials all over the country have similar cases where it would
help them build their cases if they could break into iphones. so it's' not as though this is the only time. >> rose: but that says that there is no possible procedure that can be used to make this in a sense a case by case method. because there are in our own dealings and national security processes and courts and judges that make decisions about things like this. >> that's right. and so i would say-- he would say, and again i'm not apple's defense attorney am but i wanted to hear him, how he answered this. >> rose: that is what i want to hear. >> and that this is not like-- this phone has a key that would unlock it. and if he just turns that over to the fbi the fbi can unlock the phone, get the information from it and then you're one and done. >> rose: destroy the key. >> that key doesn't exist. that door doesn't exist. they would need to build a new operating system and install it on this phone in order to let the fbi sort of breut force into the phone by testing the 10,000 different possible pass codes.
once you build that operating system, not only will other people obviously want access to it in law enforcement, it's like you know, liev said to the dinosaurs at injure asic park t will get out into the wild. >> rose: there's no way to stop it. >> you can't build a back door that only the good guys use. and so everyone-- everyone's safety and privacy becomes threatened once that operating system exists. that he doesn't think it is possible to actually lock-- you know, engineers and investigators into you know, a sealed room and open the phone and then destroy the code, make it go away and no one else then can use it. >> rose: what does he say about knowing that he is in opposition to the fbi? it's not a comfortable position. >> it's not a comfortable position. >> especially national security and especially terrorists. >> he recognizes that the optics of this are terrible. and he's uncomfortable with it.
he has likened this to past civil rights fights where he feels that the government in this case is overreaching. and someone has to say stop, slow down, let's talk about what is really at stake here. and let me say apple obviously has a lot at stake. as to other technology companies and everyone from microsoft to facebook to amazon, they all filed amicus briefs in support of app-- apple. but someone like michael hayden who is not necessarily soft on terrorism, nsa, cia head, and someone that understands the threat of cyberattack very well also has ended up coming down on apple he side. that encryption is something that is valuable and important for our national defense. >> rose: with no exceptions from michael haynes. >> this exception, of build the back door to break through this encryption, he is on apple's side in this. which i think is interesting. and people have switched sides
on this. the country is very di sided. it's not a black and white case. it's a series of tradeoffs. >> rose: here is what he said to you. you know as well as i do sometimes the way we get somewhere, our journey is very ugly. but i'm a big optimist that we ultimately arrive at the right thing. >> and i think he thinks the right way to arrive there is to really have this debate, collectively, publicly, have congress address it. and you know you said can't there be any limits? well, this is the problem. if it's one court deciding and one domestic terrorism case that it's okay to unlock the phone, another court might decide it's also okay in a robbery case or divorce case or a tax fraud case. don't we want congress to be the one as the elected representatives of the people who are saying these are the circumstances under which we think it is okay to-- to break into a phone. these are the circumstances in which it is not. >> i know tim cook and respect
him a lot. but he recoils at the idea that this has anything to do with apple's business. >> yes. and i think that shall-- . >> rose: and apple's marketing. >> it may be a false choice of is this about principle or is this about profit. >> rose: commerce. >> it may well be about both. his point is that apple didn't invent encryption and apple doesn't own encryption. >> rose: but it is et going more and more encrypted. >> it is now with the last ios it's the default setting, increasingly and encryption is the norm. his point is if apple no longer was able to encrypt your data, the bad guys will still just easily go outside of the u.s it's very easy for them to still be able to encrypt their communications, it would just make the rest of us more vulnerable because the average american doesn't want to be a computer scientist to kep their data safe. >> rose: there is also a controversy abouts whatapp, another case where there are
issues about how terrorists are using that to protect their own communications. let me turn to another question that comes up in this. it is that, this is what leb grossman said, it emerged that resetting the i cloud password that had been a serious tact kal error, they could have gotten the phone to make a fresh backup of itself automatically but once you change the i cloud password, it won't back itself up without the pass code. >> so the fbi, because the phone actually isn't, wasn't owned by the terrorist, it was owned by san bernardino county, they thought they could get the information off of it just by resetting the password and getting into his i cloud account. they did that, and they found that the phone hadn't actually been backed up for the last few weeks. if instead of doing that, they had gone to his house, plugged it in and it would have automatically backed up, then they would have had all the information on the phone. >> rose: yeah. >> so they actually, the one
door that was available to them and that apple had helped them open t turned out that they had rose: who is winning the. battle of public opinion. >> i think that is a moving target. i think you know, you've seen some people like lindsey graham who initially came out against apple who upon further conversation has now been more inclined to see the other side. >> rose: so apple may be winning. >> i done know that they are winning. but i think even to the extent that this becomes a more complex debate than just the sound bite, they're proteching the terrorists against the fbi, to that extent apple is winning if they are able to say there is much more at stake than sort of false die cot me of privacy versus security. >> rose: you say sooner or later these questions will need to be put before the american people which is one reason the fbi made this fight so ferocious and public. the question of where national security meets policy. >> the fact is that there is an enormous amount of information that we all have made available about ourselves, quite apart
from what is encrypted on our-- devices. >> that we don't want other people to know. >> in a way this is the golden age of surveillance, people have said. we bugged ourselves. we make our health data and what we eat and where we are at any given time. and we have all of that available and much of it is available publicly. so what law enforcement is able to find out about anyone that they are interested in is vastly greater than it has ever been in history. i think part of the question is to what extent does the fbi and other law enforcement need to do what our national security infrastructure has been doing of upgrading their capabilities as opposed to, you know, is this a short cut. is this the fbi trying to take a short cut to get this information, as opposed to becoming a real 21s century law enforszment-- 21s century law enforcement agency, that is one round of technology critics have said, this is not the way you want to do it. >> you accept the idea that apple makes the point in its
argument that there is no such thing as a one-- this say one-phone case. >> right. it cannot be that? >> well, there are-- why would this one case be different than another murder case or another criminal case that involves a case involving a drug dealer which is one that apple was involved in. where law enforcement says in order to build our case we need access. who should be deciding which cases warrant this kind of intrusion and which cases don't. >> rose: i have had people come to this table and people from silicon valley and people who are very smart about understanding where we are in technology and computers and i pads and iphones and all of that. and many of them will argue or some of them, some of them will argue that the government can go to banks and get access to their bank statements. and that this is very private.
but there is a process to do that. and why can't there be a process to do this. >> there was even legal precedent of a-- somebody who had a bullet embedded in his shoulder that investigators needed to make their case-- an could they force a doctor against the patient's wishes to remove the bullet. if that is not ultimately if that worked its way up through the courtsk, ultimately the patient won. but the fact that that took multiple appeals shows you that the reach-of-law enforcement, and this is as apple points out, this is under the all-rits act which is a 200 year old rather broadly written law, the ability of law enforcement to have fairly unlimited access to the places they need to go to make their case is well established legal precedent. so if we think because of the technological universe we are now living in, and because of, again, these incredibly powerful databases we have created about
ourselves, i'll bet you, charlie, your phone has more information about you than your house does. >> rose: i'm sure it does. >> and so now that we have-- which didn't exist ten years ago. but we are living in this new world we've created. and the law needs to catch up with that. and so that's why they are feeling that this is something that congress, that needs to be decided in congress. apple of course says we'll abide by the law, obviously. but that doing this on a case by case basis is puts everyone's security at risk. >> rose: everybody knew this was coming, i think. because silicon valley, people i have talked to, ash carter, the secretary of defense. he's very, very concerned on a couple of levels about how they deal with silicon valley. or wherever the course is of remarkable technological innovation. and they worry about, you know, the relationship with silicon valley and worry about how do they form some kind of cooperative and coop-- cooperative relationship. they can deal with a range of issues.
>> i think you have put your finger on one of the most interesting questions here. which is that a lot of these silicon valley companies that are involved in this case are this century's media companies. and in the 20th sent ree, the media baron. saltsbergers and grahams and loses and pailies of the world had huge commercial interest. they also had a public trust and a public responsibility. en do you not publisho weigh something because of national security or when do you-- you go to court in order to publish the pentagon papers. that territory and those obligations were well explored. now we're in this new world where a whole new set of players now has the kind of power that those 20th century players had. what are their obligations, what are their public responsibilities whether it's to the government-- . >> rose: and living in a world of connectedness. >> and where their operations, these are global companies. they may be based and born and based in america. but they're global companies. and apple sells 25% of its
iphones in china. and so you know, it is easy for them to say that if the united states government can tell us to open this back door, so can the iranian government, so can the chinese government. but the fact is that they are looking at this across the entire globe. and their interests and obligations everywhere tz tim cook comes out of alabama. >> yes, he does tz tim cook was one of the first top c.e.o.s to announce that he was gay. tim cook is a guy who has pictures of martin luther king and robert kennedy in his office. he's a guy that has enormous respect for people who have been prepared to go the distance for their beliefs. >> that is exactly the mode that he appears to be operating in, in this case. and you could say it would be in apple's interest for this all to have been handled much more quietly. or you can argue as the justice department has that no apple
wanted this public fight because it's good for their branding. even that is an interesting question. but my sense from him certainly is that this is something where he thinks that the stakes of this debate are exceptionally high and they go much higher than simply the stakes of finding out what might be on this one phone. >> thank you, great to have you. time magazine magazine. with 9fbi and why he won't back down, written by leb grossman, this story has been on this program a lot. it is an ongoing story and time magazine gives more context to understand it. back in a moment. stay with us. >> john feinstein is here. he has been called the dean of the college basketball press. his new book explores a complex relationship and backyard rieferlries of three coaches that dominated basketball in the 19 '80s and the 0s. dean smith, duke's mike and
north carolina states jim balvono called the legend club. hall of fame coach calls this book a must-read for all lovers of both college basketball and the personalities who have made this game great. welcome back. >> thank you. >> this is a story that you said you weren't born to right but you lived it. so did i, by the way. >> yes, you did. >> i live in the middle of where all this took place. >> yeah. >> well, as you know, i went to college down there at duke and first met dean smith first of the three when i was in college in the north carolina locker room as a terrified duke junior trying to interview him about tate armstrong who was on dean's olympic team. >> rose: were you a young reporter even then. >> i was 19 and scared to death but dean couldn't have been nicer. and he had actually read something i had written in a student newspaper at duke. because back then they clipped every single paper in the country. and i had written something saying bill foster who was the duke coach should model after dean. he said you were very fair us to us in that piece especially for
someone between duke and that became a running theme for the two of us over 35 years. but i was covering the acc for "the washington post" in the '80s when dean was the icon, valvano was the rock star and she shefsky was trying to get starlee. >> and they were hired pretty close together. >> nine day as part. pine days apart, march 18th, 1980, march 27th 1980 and here is the irony i found out researching this book. steven sendak, great player of duke in the '60s was associate athletic director, he had seen sheshefsky, he brought his name to tom butter, the athletic director. when he brought the name up he was like who? he was an obscure young coach at army but eventually he became enamoured with him after interviewing him and decided to hire him even though he had been 9 and 17 at army. the headline at duke the next day was this is not a typeo. sheshefsky. but jim valvano wrote to tom butters the koamp at iona in new
york and had been very successful, he wrote to butt ires about the duke job. the letter went through sendak because he was in the coaching search and he was so impressed with the letter he showed it to butters who sent it on to willis kacey the athletic director at nc state, fine days later valvano is the state coach. >> rose: you regret you never wrote dean spit's biography. >> i do. i wanted to for many, many years as you know. an when i finally convinced him to do it in 2009, he was already in the middle stages of dementia, not the last stages of dementia. we had two long sessions together. and two things happened one there were moments when he was till dean. i asked him how he met his first wife, and he remembered it minute to minute. then i asked him about bob speer who was his first boss at air force academy. he had no idea who bob speer was. and toward the end of each session i could see him getting very, very tired. and i talked to his wife and to his son scott and we all agreed that we just couldn't go
forward. he just wasn't in good enough shape to do it. i did get some things out of those interviews that i was able to use in this book. and dean's wife and pam valvano jim's wife were extraordinarily helpful to me. because i obviously couldn't talk to dean or jim. >> rose: what was the impact of these three guys in the 1819 '80s. >> well, dean smith was an icon by the i time sheshefsky and valvano got to north scar linea. mike's line was if we landed from mars instead of new york, we couldn't have known how i connick. he talked about recruiting a kid in california named mark ackers and real azing it wasn't going well an turning to his mom and saying mrs. akers, is there anything at all you want to foa about our academics, how mark would fit in. she said no, i done have questions because the on thing that happen stion mark go to college some place he will be close to godment he said if he comes to duke, god will be coaching ten miles down the road in chapel hill. he went to oral roberts.
but that is what they were dealing with, when they first got down there. and then dean won a national tight knell 82ee when george-- and valvano won it in '83. we remember him running around the court. so now sheshef. >> they were not supposed to win. >> they barely got in the tournament. if they hadn't won that year and jim might have gotten fired. that is the way he was thinking anyway. so when they won back to back national titles sheshefsky is sitting there 38-and-47 after three years at duke including losing 109-66 in the last game of the season in '83 to virginia. and that night i was with sheshefsky that night in the dennys, you probably heard me tell this story at 2:00 in the morning when the duke sid raised his class and saidz here's to forgetting the night and she disz shefsky said here's to never blank blag forgetting and beat them and when they won the
national championship and backed on the court. , congratulate him. he said we've come a long way from the blanking denny, haven't we. he never did forget that is what he was up against at that point. >> this is coach kay on this program in 2010 talking about the common thread among the great college coaches. here it is. >> i don't think any of those guys overcoach. overtalk, you know, like i think a competitive mind is like a glass. it can only take-- you can only fill it so much. and if you as a coach try to fill it with all that you know, you take away from that player's instincts. you have got to fill it up to a certain point and then allow the player to fill it on his own. i think there's that combination. and i think those coaches, whether they frame it that way or whatever, have ---- evoke that. >> rose: how do they coach differently. just take sheshefsky and smith. >> let's start with sheshefsky. what he said there was fascinating because i remember they were playing a game against
carolina and he had talked in practice about not letting carolina cross a line. you don't let them across that line on wednesday night. and his pregame speech that nied was he walked into the locker room, walked up to the white board in the front of the room and just drew a line. said let's go. that was it. that was his pregame speech. and i think what has made mike mike for so many years is his flexibility. he changes constantly. he learns from failure which goes back to his days at west point. two years ago when they lost to meresser in the first round of the ncaa tournament, he didn't wine about won and done, he didn't say his players were terrible on defense, which they were. he went back and said how do i get better and started doing little things. like he got on twitter so he could follow his players and know what they were thinking. he learned how to text so he could text the players on a regular basis. he decided to coach the one and done freshman like they were seniors because they were seniors. they were never going to be sophomores. you couldn't say i will be patient until they learn man to
man defense. if they couldn't play man to man, he had a place of his own which he hates doing am but that was the only way for them to win last year and that's why they won last year, because he had that flexibility. dean was very, very system oriented. this is the way we do things. the passing game on offense, changing defenses on the other end of the court, always playing deep into the bench. nobody pushed the ball better than dean smith did. >> rose: as recruiters. >> well, again, shishefsky and dean similar because they were shelling the same thing. they were selling great liberal arts education, the tradition of their two schools because duke did have a tradition as you know before he got there. dean built a tradition, although frank mcgwire won a national title in 1957. but they both sold a tra dirks the beauty of their campuses, they sold what it is like to be at a game there. valvano sold valvano. twhr was a story about valvano coming to his home on a home visit, didn't bring any
assistants, walked in the door, shouted at his father who was a high school koarch about how terrible his directions were and salt down with terry's dad and started helping him pick games because his dad liked to bet on basketball. sew went off and started picking games with his dad. by the time he walked out the door, terry had never seen nc take a look at this.it.o play dean smith in 1999, talking about what he loved about being a basketball coach. >> i really did enjoy teaching, the practices more than anything. and i enjoyed a tough ballgame where it was going to be a contest. i hated those games where the players, the fans, everyone thought we should win by 20. and i knew that the other team was dangerous. but the joy also was the relationships that you have with the guys. if basketball, in college you change each year. >> rose: dean smith, this reminded me of a story about
george wallace, governor of alabama said the only reason i'm governor is because bear bryant doesn't want to be. >> well, interesting that you should say that. little bit different because i once, in 1984 i was with dean smith on election day. and he and i would always talk politics because our politics were very similar, very liberal. >> rose: unlike mike. >> and mike used to always say you two liberal, you know what to deserve one another. >> rose: where are these programs today? you had dean smith and carolina. >> uh-huh. >> rose: were they ranked fourth now. >> they are ranked third and they are a number one seed. and duke just won the national championship last year. they had kind of a down year. >> rose: what happened. >> what happened was two things. one, tyu s joans should not have turned prom. he did because he had a great tournament. they didn't have a point guard as a result. and jefferson their good inside player got hurt and has been out since the 9th game of the season. they are not deep enough. you need seven or eight players deep, they just have six. they are still pretty good but they can't defend as.
>> it is offensive. >> very much so. >> rose: will they make it to the top 16. >> maybe, baylore in the secretary roundabout will be a tough out if they play them. but they can certainly do it carolina can win the national championship. they better. because two of their best players bries johnson and marcus paige are seniors an of course this investigation is finally winding up and we don't know what will happen in april or may when the ncaa finally comes down with their results and this investigation. >> it is terrible. i mean it's a terrible thing. especially for a program like carolina. i don't think, anybody who really loves college basketball, you know, can't be happy to see this happening. what is interesting about nc state is they have had some good teams since jim left in 1990. but pam valvano said something that was fascinating. that she believed that all four coaches who volumed jim have all coached in his shadow, even mark gottfried today because every year we see the speech that jim gave eight weeks before he died. and every year we see him
running around that court in albuquerque and is he still jowng and still jim valvano am it is hard to get out of that shadow because he was such a unique personality the. there was never anybody line him, he said jim didn't take over the room, he became the room because he was so spart and so funny. one interesting thing i learned from his wife is that jim and dean were good friends. when jim was invited in 1993 six weeks before he died to throw out a first pitch at yankee stadium by george stein brenner because stein brenner knew he was a yankee fan and had always wanted to do that, he was too sick to travel at that point. and stein brenner said if you can't make it, send someone in your place and we'll say you are representing jim valvano am so he had called dean smith. >> i remember. >> and asked him to go. dean of course was a yankee fan. stein brenner daughter had gone to carolina. but dean hated to be in public. you heard him talk, i love coaching, the practices, sheshefsky said he if he could
have within beaned to the practice the coulds and he would be happy. but he went and threw out the first piech. he said in her home there are all sorts of pictures with dean with kids, grandkids, friends shall coaches, only one person him alone and it is him throwing out that first pitch. >> rose: it is an amazing story. back to where we are this year. tell me we're on the over of the march madness. what does it look like? >> well, it looks as wide open as it has been in years. last year if i had been sitting here a year ago you would have been saying can anybody beat kentucky. the answer turned out to be yes, wisconsin beat them. and then duke beat wisconsin, i know you remember that. but this year if you said pick one team, i would say give me ten choices and i might not pick the national champion. i think michigan state with tom izzo sawls a threat. i think carolina has the most talent. i love the way virginia plays with tony bennett, one of the underrated coaches in the country. kansas is playing as well as
anybody in the country is right now. and i would probably still haven't touched on the team that will win the towrn am. >> rose: how good is engram. >> very good. he will be the number one pick in the draft, simons number one and ingram number two. >> rose: he's that good. >> he's that good because he's 6, 8, he's still growing. he is a teenager. >> rose: started slow this year. >> but he's college freshman but he can shoot the 3 and really put if on the floor. and he will learn to defend. he will be a very good nba player and unfortunately for duke and college basketball, he will be an nba player next year. that's again what is fascinate being sheshefsky. he healths the one and done. he can't stand it because like dean especially and valvano too, he's always been about relationships with the players. that's what he loves doing is helping them to grow. >> rose: it is one of his best recruiting tools. >> exactly. when he was first recruiting, he would fly home with a recruit after a visit so he could spend time alone with the recruit. the ncaa changed the rules so she couldn't do it. they call it the sheshefsky
rule. he was always about those relationships. one and done you can't really develop them but he still wants to win games sew has to recruit those kids. >> rose: one last clip from coach kay in 2010. here it is. >> what i hope i give my time is-- team is first of all they have a confidence level that i am the guy coordinating all of this. that they can use their skills an i will be there to help them use their skills as well as they possibly can in every game and that i won't do so much that i will rob them of their instincts. nd over the scours of the year they just trust us, our players trust us. >> it was a great story about that, what he just said. the famous game in the 2. when they beats kentucky, grand hill tells the story about coming off, after kentucky took the lead with 2.1 seconds to go and is thinking well, i guess we're all going on spring break next week. they walked into the huddle and the first thing sheshefsky said
is we're going to win the damn game. and by the time they walked out of the huddle they were all convinced they were going to win the damn game. and they did and that is what he is talking about with i am the fa till sater-- facilitator. the best coaches, if the coach says to you, you can win this game walking on your hands, you believe you can win this game walking on your hands, all three of these guys did that. >> rose: here is dean smith talking about the importance of defense in basketball. >> i think it helps build your-- offense if you have a team defense. and everyone wants to play offense so you get the team that is playing hard defensively, well then i think you know, that will win games because are you holding the other team and then it transfers to the unselfishness on defense transfers to your offense. so we did start there. and we limit a team to one shot which is part of defense, defense is rebounding because you generally win. >>? >> he was right about that.
and the thing that i come away with is mike saying to me i wouldn't be who i am today if i hadn't had the coach against these two guys. they made me that much better. >> it is a remarkable story. the book is called the ledge in's club. questions about-- i spent some time with jordan. tell me your impression, and where he is. the number one golfer in the world. >> well, he is 22 going on 40. when you talk to him, first of all. and i laugh when i hear people say he doesn't do anything great. he does the two things that are most important if golf better than anybody. he is the best putter in the world. the most important physical thing you do in golf and he has tter and has the best mind.ase that is why he won. >> the old tiger, yes. >> not-- phil mick elson said
about tiger recently, nobody is even remote as good as he was. >> i agree. >> at his best. >> i agree because i think at his dominant best at that period from 1997 to 2008 when he won 14 majors an even if you narrow it to 99 to 02ee when he won, he won majors by 15, by 12, by eight, nicholas didn't do that. he was great, don't get me wrong but he dominated the game in a way no one has dominated and that is why i get scared when i hear people say rory is the next, jordan is the next, jasonday is the next tiger, nobody is the next tigerment let them be jordan, speet, rory, mcelroy and jason day because task's pretty darn good. >> rose: that's right. what do they say about tiger in terms of his physical self. >> they say who knows. i don't think tiger woods knows if he will play again. and everybody is just kind of sitting there waiting to see if he slows up again. and nobody is kowfnlting on it and that's actually a positive thing. >> clearly he's 40. but the good thing for golf,
charlie, is for years, there was concern. what happens when tieing err goes away. whenever that comes. is golf going to collapse completely? well, now you've got these three great young players and a possibility fourth in ricky fowler who are not only very, very good players, they're very, very good guys. >> and rory mcelroy. >> right. >> okay, so here's what is interesting about speet to me in a conversation today as we tape this, i mean he was 54 under for the four majors. 54 under. >> right. >> he said he don't think anybody will ever do that again. because they're all making the courses tougher. he said he doesn't expect, he expects maybe ten under to win the masters. >> he shot 17 under at whistling straits in the pga and didn't win. >> exactly. >> and i think it's the third greatest year in the history of golf. the greatest year in the history of golf, jordan's, the greats year to me was 2,000 when tiger won the u.s. open by 15, the
british open by eight and the pga by five and finished off in 01 by by winning the masters. 1953 ben hogan only won played and won all three. i think jordan 2015, winning two, finishing second an t four one shot out of the playoff in the british open is third. that is how good it is. >> wow. he also said, an interesting thing to me. he talked about his putting because people say when he is at 15 steed it is almost like everybody being a five seed. >> is he probably that good. >> thank you for coming. back in a moment. stay with us. a.o. scott, the new york sometimes chief film crit you can, he has written a book called better living through criticism, how to think about art, pleasure, beauty and truth. los angeles time wrotes scott's book is like watching the stiff upper lipped hero of a british 1940s thriller facing down his or her adversaries, modest, brave and upperly unflappable. i'm pleased to have ao tony
scott back at this table. welcome. >> great to be here. >> so why did you write this is the first question. >> for a few different reasons. one, i had just sorlt in my nature to always be reflecting on what i doment and i had written some pieces over the years about what i thought criticism is for. what critics do. why people are sometimes mistaken when they think critics are, you know, the enemies of artists or out to spoil everyone's fun. it was also more immediately because i began to notice allots of predictions of my immediate extinction. this idea that we have amazon marketing algorithmics and yelp and facebook and twitter. everybody is a critic. so nobody needs professional critics any more. and i wanted to think about that in a way without prejudice, not just to celebrate the great dim october receive the internet but also not to moan and cry about how the sky is falling and how
my wonderful job is going to be taken away and how standards are collapsing and the world is going to hell. so i thought well, maybe i can explain what criticism is. why it matters, where it comes from, why it is a part of our lives, not just a part of what we see but a part of what we all do when we go out and talk about and think about the works of art that we're interested in. >> you started as a book critic. >> i did, and migrated to movies. it's now almost 17 years ago. >> i sni i srtd from an interest in criticism. >> who has informed your own sense of criticism,ed duty, responsibility, talent. >> there are a lot of writers who i grew up, in film criticism it's impossible to avoid the influence, the voice is so
strong and she's really a mod knell a way. i think for good and in some ways for bad of how to talk in a direct e personal passionate way about popular culture. she is influenced not only film crit ims but people who write about popular music and television. i was influenced very much, my great passion in adolescence was popular mus you can, punk rock d the aftermath. and i read a lot of the rock critics of the day. and in particular, i would say grill marcus was an enormous influence because he could take something. cotake a song, an album track, a performance and open it up in a way and show how it was connected to all of these other things in the world, in american history, in modern culture and do it with such a powerful, personal voice that he still is a strong role model for me. another one i've been on this show talking about him, is of course roger ebert who for me is person fies crit sim as a
democratic art. as a person talking to other people, as someone who is knowledgeable but not at all snobbish, who is convinced of their own tastes but also is willing to listen to other people and whether he is on tfertionz or in the pages of the sun times or in his book could speak directly about what he cared about in a way that other people with care about it too. >> one criticism,-- it is they say a critic's suggested what was in their mind which was never there. >> well, i have a quote right at the beginning of the book from oscar wilde who says the highest act of criticism is to put into a work of art something that the artist hadn't even put there. and it's precisely because you don't know how to do a thing that you are the best judge of it. i think that one of the fascinating things to me about all different kinds of works of art is how open they are to
interpretation. how weather we're professional critics or not, when we see them and we appreciate them, whether we like them or we don't like them, we are filtering them through our own personalities, our own personses, our own emotions. a critic is no different from anyone else. we just do it in a way that's more public and is trying to be of use to other people. >> i think most artists when they read a criticism say yes, that's right, are most artists never agree with the criticism. >> i sometimes hear from filmmakers. and sometimes you know, i get an e-mail or a letter that says, you know, thank you so much. you understood perfectly what i was trying to do. they tend to say that when i had positive things to say about it. i tend, i like to think that i understood it just as well when
i didn't like it. i think it really varies. i think there are artists who take criticism very much to heart. who are either wounded by it or encouraged by it i think there are some people, some artists who just ignore it i once asked-- couldhen, who are true artists and hate to talk about their movies, don't like to interpret anything. and they're great to talk to, but they said well, you know, if we get a lot of good reviews, maybe we'll sell some more tickets. >> right. >> but have you had artists come to you and say you know, you're absolutely right. i failed to do that i knew i was not doing that. it was a struggle for me. it's painful that you pointed it out but it's true. >> that does happen sometimes. and i think that i am very touched by that when it does happen. because i try not to be, not to be cruel, not to be har be, not to be peun tiff. i think there are some things that are just bad and cynical
and in a way corrupt that deserve to be sort of called out and harshly scolded am but i think a lot of the time most of the time i try to proceed from the idea that well, no one was trying to make a bad movie. someone was trying to do something good. and sometimes i have heard, you know, i'm not going to name any names. but people have said to me, you know, i think, i think that's right. i think we didn't, you know, we didn't quite nail the end of that story. we didn't quite have it as sharp as we could have. >> how much of good criticism is simply good writing? >> i think a lot of it. maybe all of it. you know. i think that you need to, you need to be knowledgeable. you need to have good judgement. but for me the crit ims who i love to read are not the ones i necessarily agree with but the ones whose voices i want to hear. the ones whose company i seek out. >> what i want to hear in a crit imis a love for the art that he or she is writing about.
>> i think that's the key. and i think it's so interesting to me that critics are often accused of the opposite. as if we could be motivated by hatred or hostility. as if anyone could spend, you know, hundreds of thousands of hours in a movie theater doing that for their-- for a living. because they hated movies. that would be a really very perverse approach to the world. so i try to walk in and i think almost every critic i know does with an open mind, with an openness, an expectation or hope of being surprised. >> here is another criticism i hear of critics. they come to this table. and they say well, but-- they criticize the movie they wanted me to make, not the movie i made. >> well, i have to say i felt that a little bit in reading some of the reviews of this book. >> it's turned around a little bit and there have been a couple reviews where i think well,
that's an interesting account of some other book. book you wish i wrote or the book you thought i wrote or would have assumed i had written. and i think that that is a risk that you take sometimes. that-- an i think it's something to try to struggle against. i don't think that you can ever entirely overcome that risk of kind of imposing your own expectations on the work. but you really do triment and i think that every critic that i know and respect really does try to see the thing for what it is. to figure out what it is, what it is trying to do. whether it lived up to its own intentions. whether those intentions were worthy. and that is where you have to begin, with the sense of, well, what is this. what did i just see? >> how often do you write a review of a film and you look and almost everybody else including people you respect had
a different view. and so you ask yourself what did i miss here? >> well, that's fascinating. it's one of my favorite things about criticism. it was always my favorite thing it is still my favorite thing about reading other crit am-- crit ims-- critics. the longest chapter in this book is called how to be wrong. i think one of the things that critics do for one another and do for the audience is take positions that can be disagreed with. and i love reading writers that i respect saying, you know, 180 degrees away from where i am. in a way it doesn't make me doubt myself so much as think well, that movie must be really interesting. only a really interesting movie could inspire such opposite and such strongly held views. >> i think in a way when we stop arguing about works of art is when we begin to lose interest in them. when they begin to die a little bit. >> here is something you wrote that i admired. our drive to create originates in and compensates for a primal
feeling of alienation or lossness in the universe and con feuks about our identity. with. >> well, i think that is what art sets out to do. to try to explain to ourselves what it is to be human. the puzzle and the mystery and sometimes the sense of loss and alienation, where are we, what are we doing. >> and also you're not alone. >> and also you're not alone, right. and i think that the representations of the human condition that we kind of put under the-- into the category of art are what also inspire us toward the act of criticism. cuz then we have to figure out what those things were. someone painted a picture or wrote a poem or composed an opera that is showing us something about human emotions and human thoughts and human feelings. and then we have to figure out what they meant. what they were saying, what that all means. so it's part of just this endless human project in a way of making sense of who we are,
of where we are. >> do you ever write that this not a great movie but boy i loved it. >> yeah. i think so. i mean i try to bring those things into alignment as much as i can. but there are movies, there are quite a few movies that may be are not on, you know, formal or aesthetic grounds, perfectly achieved master pieces. >> something about ent taining and push turning pages. >> st the notion by john grishham that et goes better and better as he writes but it the notion that somebody that does popular cul toor. and if the definition is doing popular culture, they do it really well. >> they do it really well. and it is sometimes when it is done really well, it sometimes can rise to the level of art. i mean one of my favorite movies last year was creed which i think is a great movie and a wonderful piece of popular entertainment. i also had a really good time in 2015 at fur yus 7, which no one will say is a master piece of cinema but had such conviction,
such audacity, was so much fun and was so generous with its audience in a way. it was saying to the audience, you know, come on, let's have a good time. let's drive these cars off these sky scrairps and land them on the highway and keep driving. >> what should a good movie have? >> i think that a good movie should have some kind of human connection. for me, whether it's fantasy or science fiction or superhero or comedy or whatever, it should have some core of human authenticity, where it-- there's some feeling or some situation that i can recognize as-- . >> rose: i think that is what art should do. it should show speak to you and say something to you that you show deep inside feel. >> yes. >> rose: but have not been able to give expression to other than you know it's there. >> it's that recognition, where you see something, you see the faces on the screen, you see a situation and it may be-- .
>> rose: you hear the dialogue, see the agony and know the pain. >> yes. and you feel it or the laughter, you know. >> rose: or the laughter for sure. >> yeah. >> the oscars, you said i'm a critic, a scowld, a snob, paid hack, intent on punishing artists. >> does anybody agree with this, a snob, a paid hack, intent on punishing artists an spoiling the fun of the public. that at least is a role i'm sometimes called upon to play. and in that capacity i would like to say forget about the oscars. >> well, that was before the oscars. i wrote that. but i mean the oscars were a fascinating show this year for sure. and i thought what chris rock did in very difficult circumstances was pretty fantastic. it was masterful. and the academy had put itself into this situation where they were deservedly being called out for kind of manifesting the
narrowness and exclusiveness and homoagain aity of hollywood and the film industry and the lack of diversity and inclusion. the criticism is the nature of the academy itself. >> yes. and i think that is a big problem. and of course the academy does reflect the larger film industry. and it is attached to the bigger problem of fewer opportunities for filmmakers and writers and actors of color. and women. and i think the more attention that's brought to that, the better. i think also the academy has a particular problem of having a sort of a narrow idea of what is quality. what is press teej, what are the kinds of movies that we want to show to the world as our kind of superior products. and i think they leave out a lot of very interesting movies that don't fit that narrow definition. so it's always, and again, this is not a judgement of the
particular movies. i admire quite a few of them. i love spotlight. i like brooklyn a lot. i like the big short. >> i liked room. i liked especially the first half. i loved the perform anses. but i think you know they never have room for comedies. they don't have room for movies that are connected with some of the more youthful and more diverse energies within the popular culture. so they couldn't see the artistry of a movie like creeds, a boxing movie, a rock ye movie. >> but. >> but i happen to think it's a remarkable drama. i think it is up to the standards of all of the nominees last year. and in a way, you know, it's okay. because people like that movie an people embraced that movie and the movie will be all right. but the oscars if they want to have any kind of claim on relevance or on public
attention, need to figure out how to reform. >> rose: a organize scott is the chief fill im-- film critic of the new york sometimeses. better living through criticism, how to think about art, pleasure, beauty and truth is the title of the book. thank you. >> thank you, charlie. great to be here. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs.org an charlie rose.com captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
this is "nightly business report." with tyler mathisen and sue herera. green for the year. on this st. patrick's day the dow goes positive for 2016, erasing all of the turmoil of january and february. tackling entitlements. what the speaker of the house wants to do with social programs you want to touch. fill her up. grab a taco or go for a swim. an entrepreneur's journey to prove everything is bigger in texas. all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for thursday, march good evening and happy st. patrick's day. a stunning turnaround. the blue chip dow index is positive for 2016, who'd have thunk it. it erased losses from the mark's worst start to a year ever and revers